rod_sainty2

Scott, I deliberated over the same question when I put together a Pentax 67 kit (nearly 20 years ago!). As primarily a scenic

photographer, I had usually found the 50mm lens in 35mm format to be somewhat tight, so I favoured the wider or 'looser' view offered by

the 90mm lens. And the 90 fitted better with my 45mm, 165mm and 300mm. In addition, I reasoned that the 90mm lens was more

compact in size, focused quite a bit closer, and, as the much newer design of the two, might be sharper. I bought mine new, and was

certainly pleased with the results it gave me. However, as I came over time to do more portraits, at times I wished for the longer

perspective of the 105mm. And the 105mm is no slouch in sharpness either; I recall the 1999 (I think) test by Popular Photography rated

it as 'excellent' at most apertures and a pro told me that he considered his 105 to be very sharp indeed. Certainly, either lens will have better contrast than your 135 macro, plus they're much more compact and provide brighter viewing. Make sure you get a later production copy with the Pentax 67 designation and check it against a bright specular light source for hazing on the elements which seems to afflict many lenses, I think due to either humidity deposits or heat volatilising the helicoid grease. I sold most of my kit when I eventually switched to the Mamiya 7 system but bought a like-new 105 as a portrait lens for the body I kept, for a low price. It's a very nice lens and does offer slightly brighter viewing and the shallower depth of field.

<p>Hi Dan, hi Bob. I can see how the locating screw might be deemed to be unnecessary by manufacturers if the rear ring is regarded as sufficient, but, unless vibration makes it come out, in what way can it be a nuisance?<br /> <br /> Of course, the problem my technician found is that there is insufficient thread present at the rear to enable the ring to be tightened to stop the rotation. Hence, in this instance, the pin was needed. Can you suggest any alternative?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Paul, you were correct. The technician found that the locating pin was missing. Thank you for your advice.</p>

<p>He didn't have a Schneider pin at hand to replace it, but found a substitute. He had a screw from a Canon lens that had a matching screw thread but a much larger diameter post head. He was able to reduce the diameter of the post head on his lathe. I think that's pretty impressive service in this day and age.</p>

<p>He also commented that it seemed that the original locating pin was never present, as there appeared to be no way it could have escaped from inside the lens. Perhaps the alignment had previously been achieved only by the retaining ring at the rear.</p>

<p>Thank you, Bob, for your considered response. The feedback from the technician today was that he believes the nut was centered because it was not undone enough to not be centered. He also clarified that he is not proposing to move the shutter forward but, rather, to move the nut back in order to expose more thread. He assured me that the focus will not be disturbed.</p>

<p>My Schneider Super-Angulon 72mm XL lens is mounted on a Schneider helical focus mount and Cambo Wide DS mounting plate, for use on the Cambo Wide DS 4x5 camera. I've just returned from a month-long overseas trip shooting architecture in colour and B&W, which involved frequent changing between the centre filter and red filter. Sometimes, probably due to expansion in the heat, one or other of the filters became stuck and required additional force to remove. Although I attempted to protect the lens from the torque, the lens eventually became loose in the mount. The entire lens is able to be rotated freely within the helical focus mount and the Cambo mount plate. <br>

Back home, a repair technician removed the rear lens group, exposing a blackened brass ring with spanner slots rearward of the diaphragm and shutter. He was surprised to find that tightening the ring did not fix the rotation of the lens, though it did impede it somewhat at first before loosening entirely again as the lens was rotated. He suspects that there is insufficient thread present for the ring to move forwards on to fully clamp the lens, and proposes (if I understood him correctly) to move the shutter assembly forward in order to provide additional thread at the rear. This sounds logical but I'm concerned it may upset the focus adjustment set by Cambo at the factory. <br>

Has anyone experience with this problem and able to offer advice? <br>

Thanks,<br>

Rod</p>

Andrew, I suggest you look at a second hand Cambo Wide with either the 65mm SA or later 58mm SA XL. Extremely portable, rugged,

and relatively quick to use. You can use readily available 120 roll film for 6x12 format (don't dismiss this format before you see it, plus it's

easily cropped). Solves many of your issues for less pain.

Andy, I have two Horseman 612 backs and experience occasional light leaks in bright light. Hence my interest in your post.

 

UK outdoor photographer Paul Armitage describes his experience with the Horseman 612 back on his website, within a detailed

description of his Cambo Wide kit. Paul says that the leak happens only when the dark slide is removed and can be avoided by shading

the back from direct light.

 

Let us know how it works out.

<p>Aron, your post prompted me to check my own copy of the K 28mm f3.5 lens using one of my MX bodies. The MX has a half-stop LED meter indication (and, hence, a +/- 1/4-stop resolution) in the viewfinder. The results were consistent with yours.</p>

<p>With the aperture set to f5.6 and the -1/2-stop LED lit, opening the aperture to f3.5 produced a maximum increase of 1 stop in the meter indication, rather than the 1.5 stop indication increase that I expected. (The difference from f5.6 to f3.5 is actually 1&1/3 stops, just 1/6-stop short of 1.5 stops, and hence should be shown as 1.5 stops given the MX's +/- 1/4-stop resolution). The slight shortfall between 1&1/3 and 1.5 stops leaves some room for doubt, so one ought not be dogmatic, but in this respect, the lens appears to be behaving as if it has a maximum aperture of f4. I agree that light fall-off is a a good, though untested, explanation.</p>

<p>On the narrow end, closing the aperture from f16 to f22 only ever produces a 1/2-stop decrease in the meter indication, rather than the 1 stop decrease expected. This really is a bit of a surprise and does differ to the metering behaviour of other lenses I've used. My copy of the lens has a symmetrical pentagon, so I suspect that tolerances in the blades or linkages is not the reason.</p>

<p>So I don't think the aperture ring on your lens is out of alignment as you suspect. An interesting oddity, as you term it.<br /><em></em><br /><em>Andrew, re your second point, on this particular lens (K 28/3.5) there is a click stop between f/3.5 and f/5.6. I'm not sure what f-stop it corresponds to.</em><br />Pentax states in the 1977 version of the (orange) lens instruction booklet that the click stop between f5.6 and f3.5 on all lenses having a maximum aperture of f3.5 is f4.8.</p>

<p>Hope this helps.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Charlie, I've been away, traveling with work, but was going to suggest that very course of action.</p>

<p> What you describe is very strange. Perhaps someone has messed with the rangefinder adjustment previously. Perhaps the cam inside the lens mount has been bumped out of alignment. Another variable is the lens itself; is there any evidence that it has been disassembled? </p>

<p>I, for one, would be interested in hearing an explanation of the fault from your repairer.</p>

<p>Charlie, you haven't said anywhere above that photographs taken with your camera at close distances are out of focus. Are they? </p>

<p>Jeff,<br>

Mike Johnston discussed the eight element version here:<br>

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-11-24.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-11-24.shtml</a></p>

 

<p>The response I received makes it clear that both FP-100B and FP-100B45 have been discontinued.<br />After the same opening as that quoted above, the second part continues:</p>

<p><br />"I checked with our Professional film department and was informed that<br />they found approximately 10,000 packs of the medium format size,<br />FP-100B. This film could still be around for approximately 6 months.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/278325-REG/Fujifilm_15200784_FP_10" target="_blank">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/278325-REG/Fujifilm_15200784_FP_10</a><br />0B_Professional_Instant_B_W.html<br /><br />We will pass your concerns to our Marketing Department for their review.<br /><br />We sincerely hope this information has been beneficial to you. If you<br />should have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to<br />contact us in the future. It would be our pleasure to assist you again. <br /><br />Thank you for your interest in FUJIFILM products and services.<br /><br />Respectfully,<br /><br />Rosemary, Product Agent<br />Contact Center<br />FUJIFILM North America Corporation"<br /></p>

<p>Done.<br>

Thanks, George.</p>

<p>Christian, look at the old Cambo Wide or newer Cambo Wide DS with a roll film back for 6x7, 6x9 or 6x12. Compact, sturdy, fast to operate, perfect alignment of lens to film plane, reflex viewing of ground glass if desired or simple scale focusing using helicoid-mounted lenses. </p>

<p>The more significant advantages of the MX are (a) the shutter mechanism is a refinement of the very robust traditional Pentax mechanism used since before the Spotmatic, and not dependent on either ageing electronic circuitry or batteries as is the ME Super, (b) the traditional, good-sized shutter speed dial that can be seen and pre-set before raising the camera to the eye rather than the ME Super's stupid arrangement of two tiny buttons that one must use whilst looking through the viewfinder, © a meter display that shows half-stop increments rather than the full-stop only increments of shutter speeds in the ME Super, (d) aperture indication in the viewfinder, (e) a lower-mass, horizontally-traveling shutter that causes less vibration than the metal, vertically-traveling shutter in the ME-Super, (f) a pneumatic piston dampener on the mirror movement, and the ability of locking the mirror up to eliminate mirror vibration completely (using the shutter tap method).</p>

<p>Regarding the story that the MX's top plate is thinner and more easily dented, I put that to the factory-trained head of the service division of the national Pentax agent in my country when I interviewed him for a magazine article many years ago and he stated that the top plate was NOT thinner than that traditionally used by Pentax. Perhaps more people tended to drop the camera because it's smaller size offers less space to grip it with.</p>

<p>John Carter, your photograph of the flowers is particularly lovely and enjoyable to look at. A higher vantage point would have given you vertical verticals but you have a beautiful tonal range and crispness, which suits the subject. Well done.</p>

<p>Jerry, when I taught darkroom to high school students a few years ago I had others from the digital class come across, look at what we were doing and complain "all we get to do is use the computer". Several tried to change courses. Film is tactile and that helps to make photography feel real, especially for young people. If it helps young people learn, why not use it? </p>

<p>I've just bought a new Fuji PA-45 film holder and two boxes of FB-100B45 for instant B&W. I've seen a print from the FP-100C45 and it looked great. An architectural photographer told me that the Fuji holder achieves better film flatness than the Polaroid 405 holder. </p>

<p>Nathan, I have found the Pentax 67 to give consistently excellent results when hand-held with either the 90mm f2.8 or 105mm f2.4 lenses at a shutter speed of 1/125th or faster. At 1/60th I could see some degradation on some shots, which, for me, is about the same success rate that I obtained with a 35mm format SLR with 50mm lens.</p>

<p>Although I really like the Pentax 67 and still own one together with a few lenses for particular situations, I wanted a lighter and more compact kit for travelling with work, so I exchanged the familiar SLR viewfinder for the Mamiya 7II, which I think makes for a better camera for candid shots. The shutter is almost silent and is free of vibration, making much slower shutter speeds possible. The lenses are sharp wide open, too. It was just a matter of persisting through the initial unfamiliar feel. </p>

<p>Matt, the A version has an A position on the aperture ring and the electrical contacts to allow shutter-priority automatic metering on the A-series and later film cameras.<br>

The A and M versions are optically identical. A bigger difference is that the M version is entirely metal in construction while the A version has a plastic barrel and, significantly, a plastic aperture ring. The notches that create the clicks in the plastic ring wear with use and the ring becomes excessively notchy and difficult to rotate. This may not be a problem if you keep the aperture ring in the A position and meter via the camera body on an A-series or later camera. As I'm a cranky old bugger who prefers to turn an aperture ring, this would be the deciding factor for me.<br>

Here's a useful page. Note the 20g difference in weight between the two versions. <a href="http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/primes/normal/index.html">http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/primes/normal/index.html</a></p>

<p>Tony, I recall that the KX had the option of three screens that were able to be installed at Pentax service centres. These were probably a microprism aid, a split-image aid and a plain screen. In my view the microprism aids in the Spotmatic and K series cameras (and the 6x7) are too fine, so that one has to really look carefully at them, and they become harder to use with age. The MX and ME have a much improved combined microprism and split aid that uses a coarser and hence easier to use microprism collar around a central split. (I've recently also seen a similar screen in a K1000 SE, which came out later than the KX). I suggest you cannibalise a combined microprism & split screen from a junked ME, MG or MV or similar and have that installed. I've read that the viewscreens of most Pentax cameras of that era are interchangeable by any camera technician, so I don't think you should have trouble getting a better microprism screen installed. He or she may already have a junked camera to use as parts.</p>

<p>Kevin,</p>

<p>Yes, if you want to interchange film types mid-roll while using a Mamiya 7II you will need a second body. This is a disadvantage of the Mamiya 7II compared to an Alpa 12. However, what is the price of an Alpa 6x9 back? A second Mamiya 7 /7II body may be similar in cost, in the same way that people who once considered the choice of the Pentax 67 and Hasselblad systems often found that the price of a Hasselblad interchangeable back was similar to that of a second Pentax 67 body.</p>

<p>DF, there is nothing "unnecessary" on a Cambo Wide DS, either.</p>

<p>Here's a more significant issue for film users: The Alpa range accepts only a 6x9 back. With the Cambo Wide DS (or the older Cambo Wide), you are free to choose 6x7, 6x9 or 6x12 or go "full format" with 4x5 inch (which gives you an advantage for taller subjects). In addition, the Cambo Wide DS offers lens shift of 40mm upwards, 20mm downwards and 20mm left and right (of course, the maximum shift you can use depends on the particular lens and the format). You only approach that range of shift with the high-end Alpas; the low end Alpa models offer either no shift or limited shift. As Stuart suggested, you'd be better with a Mamiya 7II and the fantastic 43mm lens; with the Mamiya you get an excellent rangefinder and a meter as a bonus.</p>

<p>If you have never used lens shift before, I suggest you check it out. Essential for architecture, but surprisingly useful for landscape. An inexpensive means of doing so would be to pick up an old Cambo Wide 650, which has the 65 Schneider lens and offers 15mm of shift, with a Horseman 6x12 back. A Cambo T-20 right-angle viewer will let you view the groundglass right-side up if you want. After shooting a few rolls, revisit your urge to go shift-less and 6x9 for a lot more money.</p>

<p>Bravin, if the building is central to the frame and the camera is inclined upwards, then the resulting keystoning looks like it does "to the eye" and therefore appears natural. However, if the building is off-centre and the camera is inclined (even just a little) then the building will appear to be falling over; an effect that I think looks ridiculous. However, I am surprised just how many times such photographs appear in (non-technical) publications and I have to suppose that the editors - and most people - are so accustomed to seeing it that they just don't notice it.</p><p>A year ago I bought a Cambo Wide DS and 6x12 back for its 2:1 format panoramic potential but was impressed by the front rise capability for architectural work. Using a 47mm or 58mm Schneider lens, the resulting wide angle views are terrific and buildings remain vertical. To me, except for some minor stretching of elements that extend into the extreme corners, the effect is beautiful, elegant - and totally realistic.</p><p>Although I do not have a 4x5 background, it seems to me that the term "perspective correction" is often used in a misleading manner. Before using my Cambo Wide, I understood from written comments that it was achieved by turning a knob and watching tilted verticals become vertical. In reality, perspective correction, or vertical verticals, at least, are achieved by keeping the camera horizontal so that the verticals simply stay vertical. The problem is then that the top of the building is above the frame and the lower half of the frame contains foreground; front rise is applied and brings the building down into the frame. Just like magic.</p><p>For the last few weeks I have been working on the 45th floor of a high-rise building; I was captivated by the view of the surrounding buildings and was struck by the realisation that EVERY vertical line appears vertical, even when looking downwards at a sharp angle. At first the effect looked quite UNnatural. That view told me that my expectation was wrong; perhaps my wrong expectation arose from having, over the course of my life, repeatedly seen (crappy) photographs with non-vertical verticals!</p>

<p>Tim, it's ten days later, but here's my view. I think the MX has to be the best and fastest handling manual camera ever. Along with the way the camera nestles in the hand, I particularly like the coarse microprism aid, the circular shutter speed display that mimics the dial on the top plate, and the way the half-stop metering display keys in with the half-stop detents on the aperture ring. (The LX display only allows a full-stop resolution, inadequate for bracketing with transparency films). I regard the viewfinder display as a genius design. Despite their age, my MXs all meter accurately. The camera is a reliable mechanical machine and none have ever let me down. The shutter and mirror vibration is much reduced over the K series cameras (such as the KM, KX and K1000) due in part to the piston damper in the mirror assembly.</p>

<p>Regarding the stuck aperture ring, remove the lens and try to move the aperture follower tab that is located just inside and peripheral to the lens mount on the MX body. This tab should move freely. One of my MXs was dropped on its head heavily; I had the top plate replaced but the follower sometimes jams due to a tiny distortion in the mount area.</p>

<p>The MX has a mechanical shutter that can be serviced by any competent technician, so you should be able to keep them running for a long time. My verdict: They just need a CLA.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm surprised that any modern photographer would find the green reflection puzzling, given that our camera lenses are multicoated. In the 1950s and '60s, blue and pale yellow reflections were most common, but with the SMC multicoating introduced by Pentax in 1971 and the similar T* coating introduced later by Zeiss, magenta, crimson, deep green and orange reflections became common, with several colours reflected by different elements within the one lens. Green is a common reflection.</p>

<p>"<em>in my option this provides little benefit except it surely lines the pockets of eyeglass makers and dispensers</em>" I disagree; I've seen a big difference between multicoated and non-coated lenses of my prescription (for myopia). The benefit is of one's appearance to others, not the wearer's vision. In my experience, the multicoating dramatically cuts down the appearance of white "glassiness" to others.</p>